Posted on 07/26/2017 7:41:17 PM PDT by marshmallow
Did not Christ prayed the night before he suffered for the unity of all who worshipped him? John 17.
Liberal Lutherans at least. Though let’s be honest, when talking about any liberal church it doesn’t matter what the denomination is. The only word that matters is ‘liberal.’
I believe that the LCMS and the WELS both reject it. I know the LCMS does at least.
Maybe, but this kind of ‘unity’ is closer to globalism than actual faith.
Correct.
After the appendix was added, the document meant nothing.
The former Pop BXVI was very upset how it ended up.
These are the looney liberal Lutherans who are a long way down the road of apostasy. Please do not confuse them with confessional Lutherans holding to Biblical Truth and the Augsburg confession
Never happening. We will not exchange truth for a lie
Those are the liberal apostate Lutherans much like the looney liberals of any denomination
” However, like Hosea’s prostitute wife, the bride has not always been faithful to the one who gave her His name.”
That’s completely false. The Bride is always faithful, not all of the members in it are, however. Gomer represented Israel, not the Church as a whole. Isaiah 54:5 hints at this. When that verse hearkens to Hosea 2:16-23 it is about the future - not the time of old Israel and Hosea and Gomer.
Ephesians 5:25-30 shows that Christ is preparing the Church now for the final glory. The Church is never unfaithful. Members of it are, however.
Amen.
>>>The Bride is always faithful, not all of the members in it are, however.
This dichotomy between bride and its members is a specious ruse. If the members unanimously repudiated Christ and His gifts, the church by definition is unfaithful. The church is not an abstract entity that exists apart from its members. Ecclesiology is yet another point of difference between Rome and Wittenberg.
“This dichotomy between bride and its members is a specious ruse.”
No - unless you’re saying your personal sin is the Church’s sin. If you beat your wife, murder the neighbor and steal a car, who did it? Did YOU do it or did the Church?
If you lose your faith in Christ and become a Muslim, did the Church become a Muslim or did you?
“If the members unanimously repudiated Christ and His gifts, the church by definition is unfaithful.”
But that can’t happen. There is always a remnant. There are always faithful - precisely because of the nature of the Church. You could, however, murder your neighbor, beat your wife, or become a Muslim. The Church can’t. The Church won’t.
“The church is not an abstract entity that exists apart from its members.”
True - but the saints don’t make the Church. GOD made the Church. God uses the Church to help make saints. What you’re doing is saying there is nothing supernatural about the Church even though it was founded by God Himself.
“Ecclesiology is yet another point of difference between Rome and Wittenberg.”
Yes, we believe in the Church and Protestants essentially only say they do. https://books.google.com/books?id=eCJNAwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false
>>No - unless you’re saying your personal sin is the Church’s sin. If you beat your wife, murder the neighbor and steal a car, who did it? Did YOU do it or did the Church?
If the church preaches false doctrine by attributing to God things He never said and doesn’t preach pure doctrine that God did say, then the church violates 2nd Commandment and commits sin.
>>If you lose your faith in Christ and become a Muslim, did the Church become a Muslim or did you?
If the reason I lost my faith in Christ’s promise is because a church tells me that I have to add my feeble contributions towards my salvation and essentially derogates the work of Jesus on the cross as insufficient, then yes, church has committed sin. It will be better that a millstone be tied around their neck and drowned in the sea than face the judgment day.
>>>>“If the members unanimously repudiated Christ and His gifts, the church by definition is unfaithful.”
>>But that can’t happen. There is always a remnant. There are always faithful - precisely because of the nature of the Church.
Throughout history, any remnant is characterized not by an institutional church but by those clinging to God’s promise even when our reason/experience tell us not to. Hence, the church is wherever two or three are gathered in His name and trusts His Word and promises.
>>You could, however, murder your neighbor, beat your wife, or become a Muslim. The Church can’t. The Church won’t.
misses the whole point.
>>>>“The church is not an abstract entity that exists apart from its members.”
>>True - but the saints don’t make the Church. GOD made the Church. God uses the Church to help make saints. What you’re doing is saying there is nothing supernatural about the Church even though it was founded by God Himself.
The church is a beautiful gift through which we teach, preach and confess to each other and to the world; we also receive absolution through confession and sacraments as established by God’s Word. That church has in it all the faithful from Adam through those yet to be born clinging to His promise across time and space and put their faith in NOTHING ELSE. Who belongs to that authentic church is revealed only on judgment day.
Roman Church trades in that gracious gift for an embarrassing idolatry of an institutional church regardless of its faithfulness to His Word.
>>>>“Ecclesiology is yet another point of difference between Rome and Wittenberg.”
>>Yes, we believe in the Church and Protestants essentially only say they do.
You believe in an institutional church. We believe in a church that confesses the apostolic faith and relies on no man-made doctrines that are not clearly and directly taught by canonical scriptures. As for adiaphora, there are plenty of areas where people of good faith can differ without having to anathematize each other.
FYI, If the Roman Church repudiates Council of Trent and adopts unaltered Augsburg Confession, I will become a Roman Catholic.
>>No - unless you’re saying your personal sin is the Church’s sin. If you beat your wife, murder the neighbor and steal a car, who did it? Did YOU do it or did the Church?
If the church preaches false doctrine by attributing to God things He never said and doesn’t preach pure doctrine that God did say, then the church violates 2nd Commandment and commits sin.
>>If you lose your faith in Christ and become a Muslim, did the Church become a Muslim or did you?
If the reason I lost my faith in Christ’s promise is because a church tells me that I have to add my feeble contributions towards my salvation and essentially derogates the work of Jesus on the cross as insufficient, then yes, church has committed sin. It will be better that a millstone be tied around their neck and drowned in the sea than face the judgment day.
>>>>“If the members unanimously repudiated Christ and His gifts, the church by definition is unfaithful.”
>>But that can’t happen. There is always a remnant. There are always faithful - precisely because of the nature of the Church.
Throughout history, any remnant is characterized not by an institutional church but by those clinging to God’s promise even when our reason/experience tell us not to. Hence, the church is wherever two or three are gathered in His name and trusts His Word and promises.
>>You could, however, murder your neighbor, beat your wife, or become a Muslim. The Church can’t. The Church won’t.
misses the whole point.
>>>>“The church is not an abstract entity that exists apart from its members.”
>>True - but the saints don’t make the Church. GOD made the Church. God uses the Church to help make saints. What you’re doing is saying there is nothing supernatural about the Church even though it was founded by God Himself.
The church is a beautiful gift through which we teach, preach and confess to each other and to the world; we also receive absolution through confession and sacraments as established by God’s Word. That church has in it all the faithful from Adam through those yet to be born clinging to His promise across time and space and put their faith in NOTHING ELSE. Who belongs to that authentic church is revealed only on judgment day.
Roman Church trades in that gracious gift for an embarrassing idolatry of an institutional church regardless of its faithfulness to His Word.
>>>>“Ecclesiology is yet another point of difference between Rome and Wittenberg.”
>>Yes, we believe in the Church and Protestants essentially only say they do.
You believe in an institutional church. We believe in a church that confesses the apostolic faith and relies on no man-made doctrines that are not clearly and directly taught by canonical scriptures. As for adiaphora, there are plenty of areas where people of good faith can differ without having to anathematize each other.
FYI, If the Roman Church repudiates Council of Trent and adopts unaltered Augsburg Confession, I will become a Roman Catholic.
“If the church preaches false doctrine by attributing to God things He never said and doesn’t preach pure doctrine that God did say, then the church violates 2nd Commandment and commits sin.”
Since the Church is the Body of Christ it cannot teach false doctrine. People can. The Church can’t. Just as the Church can’t sin. You sin. I sin. The Church doesn’t.
“If the reason I lost my faith in Christ’s promise is because a church tells me that I have to add my feeble contributions towards my salvation and essentially derogates the work of Jesus on the cross as insufficient, then yes, church has committed sin.”
False – for the following reasons: 1) If you lose your faith, YOU lose YOUR faith. Other individuals might have a hand in YOU losing YOUR faith, but the Body of Christ in itself cannot. It is a logical and spiritual impossibility. 2) The Church teaches only truth about Christ and salvation. Your fantasies about what it does and does not teach are YOUR fantasies.
“It will be better that a millstone be tied around their neck and drowned in the sea than face the judgment day.”
Sinful and erring individuals. Not the Church. All that will happen to the Church on Judgment Day is that it will enter glory.
“Throughout history, any remnant is characterized not by an institutional church but by those clinging to God’s promise even when our reason/experience tell us not to.”
False dichotomy. Christ established an institutional Church with visible leaders. There is no way to separate the visible Church on this earth from the invisible Church on this earth.
“Hence, the church is wherever two or three are gathered in His name and trusts His Word and promises.”
You might want to read Matthew 7:21 along with Matthew 18:20 which you just cited: “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.”
“misses the whole point.”
Nope. It’s right on target and irrefutable. And that’s probably why you’re going to keep avoiding it.
“The church is a beautiful gift through which we teach, preach and confess to each other and to the world; we also receive absolution through confession and sacraments as established by God’s Word. That church has in it all the faithful from Adam through those yet to be born clinging to His promise across time and space and put their faith in NOTHING ELSE. Who belongs to that authentic church is revealed only on judgment day.”
And it doesn’t sin and can’t. And it doesn’t teach false doctrine and can’t.
“Roman Church trades in that gracious gift for an embarrassing idolatry of an institutional church regardless of its faithfulness to His Word.”
No, the Protestant sects aren’t even part of the Church. They attack Christ while claiming to know and love Him. Protestants are forced to lie about the Catholic Church and invent fantasies to provide a raison d’etre. As the former Protestant minister, John Henry Newman noted, “To Protestantism False Witness is the principle of propagation.” (John Henry Newman, Lecture 4. True Testimony Insufficient for the Protestant View)
“You believe in an institutional church.”
I believe in the Church since it is Christ’s. There’s no denying that it has institutional structure on this earth. God gave it Apostles. That means and institution no matter how much you say otherwise.
“We believe in a church that confesses the apostolic faith and relies on no man-made doctrines that are not clearly and directly taught by canonical scriptures.”
False. Show me where in scripture it says there are only 66 books of the Bible. Show me where sola scriptura is in scripture. Show me where sola fide is in scripture – especially in light of James 2:24 which denies it. Why do you think Martin Luther had such a dim view of the Letter of James?
“As for adiaphora, there are plenty of areas where people of good faith can differ without having to anathematize each other.”
There’s never a reason to believe someone who denounces Christ’s Church – as you have – has good faith.
“FYI, If the Roman Church repudiates Council of Trent and adopts unaltered Augsburg Confession, I will become a Roman Catholic.”
1) The Catholic Church will not renounce any truth.
2) I’m not “Roman”. I’m Catholic. The Church is Catholic. The Roman Church is part of it.
3) Why would the Church Christ founded – the Catholic Church - adopt the (s)creed of a latter-day, heretical German sect?
>>Since the Church is the Body of Christ it cannot teach false doctrine. People can. The Church can’t. Just as the Church can’t sin. You sin. I sin. The Church doesn’t.
Mindless drone repeating nonsense.
>>>>“If the reason I lost my faith in Christ’s promise is because a church tells me that I have to add my feeble contributions towards my salvation and essentially derogates the work of Jesus on the cross as insufficient, then yes, church has committed sin.”
>>False – for the following reasons: 1) If you lose your faith, YOU lose YOUR faith. Other individuals might have a hand in YOU losing YOUR faith, but the Body of Christ in itself cannot. It is a logical and spiritual impossibility. 2) The Church teaches only truth about Christ and salvation. Your fantasies about what it does and does not teach are YOUR fantasies.
And you screwed the pooch by essentially claiming what is truth is determined by what an institutional church teaches (which as varied fundamentally from time to time) and not what the scripture teaches.
>>>>“It will be better that a millstone be tied around their neck and drowned in the sea than face the judgment day.”
>>Sinful and erring individuals. Not the Church. All that will happen to the Church on Judgment Day is that it will enter glory.
Atleast, you surrendered your discerning faculties.
>>>>“Throughout history, any remnant is characterized not by an institutional church but by those clinging to God’s promise even when our reason/experience tell us not to.”
>>False dichotomy. Christ established an institutional Church with visible leaders. There is no way to separate the visible Church on this earth from the invisible Church on this earth.
Christ established a confessional church with fallible leaders and infallible promises. Hence, trust the infallible promises not fallible leaders.
>>>>“Hence, the church is wherever two or three are gathered in His name and trusts His Word and promises.”
>>You might want to read Matthew 7:21 along with Matthew 18:20 which you just cited: “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.”
so it must follow, not everyone who says either “church, church” or “pope, pope” are home free.
>>>>“misses the whole point.”
>>Nope. It’s right on target and irrefutable. And that’s probably why you’re going to keep avoiding it.
I find your mindless repetition somewhere between mild amusement and unsurprising.
>>>>“The church is a beautiful gift through which we teach, preach and confess to each other and to the world; we also receive absolution through confession and sacraments as established by God’s Word. That church has in it all the faithful from Adam through those yet to be born clinging to His promise across time and space and put their faith in NOTHING ELSE. Who belongs to that authentic church is revealed only on judgment day.”
>>And it doesn’t sin and can’t. And it doesn’t teach false doctrine and can’t.
It does sin and does repeatedly and daily. A doctrine’s truth or falsity is judged by scripture not whether a clerical hierrarchy teaches it or not.
>>>>“Roman Church trades in that gracious gift for an embarrassing idolatry of an institutional church regardless of its faithfulness to His Word.”
>>No, the Protestant sects aren’t even part of the Church.
and loving it for 500 years.....
>>They attack Christ while claiming to know and love Him.
by preaching that what He did on the cross wasn’t enough, like your masters do?
>>>>Protestants are forced to lie about the Catholic Church and invent fantasies to provide a raison d’etre.
pfffft.....500 years and going strong...
>>>>“You believe in an institutional church.”
>>I believe in the Church since it is Christ’s. There’s no denying that it has institutional structure on this earth. God gave it Apostles. That means and institution no matter how much you say otherwise.
As Romans 1:21-22 says, “For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.”
Perhaps along with papist things?
>>>>“We believe in a church that confesses the apostolic faith and relies on no man-made doctrines that are not clearly and directly taught by canonical scriptures.”
>>False. Show me where in scripture it says there are only 66 books of the Bible. Show me where sola scriptura is in scripture. Show me where sola fide is in scripture – especially in light of James 2:24 which denies it. Why do you think Martin Luther had such a dim view of the Letter of James?
Because Luther didn’t see Christ in James. From Eusebius on, James was part of the scripture that was disputed whether it belongs in the cannon. Technical word for it is antilegomena. No such questions are raised about Romans, Galatians or Ephesians.
You don’t draw a fundamental soteriology doctrine from a disputed book when it wasn’t confirmed by other books that weren’t disputed (homologoumena). That’s where Rome screwed the pooch.
>>>>“As for adiaphora, there are plenty of areas where people of good faith can differ without having to anathematize each other.”
>>There’s never a reason to believe someone who denounces Christ’s Church – as you have – has good faith.
Then your spiritual masters have demonstrated bad faith with a charade of calls for unity.
>>>>“FYI, If the Roman Church repudiates Council of Trent and adopts unaltered Augsburg Confession, I will become a Roman Catholic.”
>>1) The Catholic Church will not renounce any truth.
too bad it has stopped announcing truth...
>>2) I’m not “Roman”. I’m Catholic. The Church is Catholic. The Roman Church is part of it.
Apparently, the only part of it....
>>3) Why would the Church Christ founded – the Catholic Church - adopt the (s)creed of a latter-day, heretical German sect?
Because Gospel is the truth. Just like the God chose (insignificant) Hebrews to be the vehicle of His Revelation, He chose (equally insignificant) Germans as a vehicle to reclaim His Gospel from the likes of your masters.
As God says in Isaiah 55:8-9,
8”“For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
neither are your ways my ways,”
declares the Lord.
9 “As the heavens are higher than the earth,
so are my ways higher than your ways
and my thoughts than your thoughts.
>>No, it’s just irrefutable logic – and that’s why you can’t refute it.
I did but you can’t recognize it.
>>And you screwd the pooch by claiming what is truth is not determined by the Body of Christ – the Catholic Church – even though we have the clear example of that in Acts. You also make the false charge of saying “which as varied fundamentally from time to time”. You will not back this up and don’t even try. It’s obvious why. You apparently can’t.
I can’t remediate you lack of knowledge of the Bible or Church History. Read Martin Chemnitz’s 4 volume Examination of the Council of Trent. It vaporizes the many layers of papal dross on the pure and priceless Gospel.
>>I did not. Did you surrender your discerning faculties by surrendering to Christ? I bet you didn’t. What you did do was learn to trust. I trust Christ – and His Body – the Catholic Church.
I surrendered the majesterial use of reason to inform me of God’s message when it is clear. I never surrendered my ministerial use of reason.
>>The Church is infallible. The men leading the Church are fallible in everyday concerns, but the Church is infallible. I don’t place my trust in fallible men – like you – nor in fallible men in the Church when it comes to everyday concerns. The Church, however, is infallible.
Hold my beer.......its fun to watch papists turn themselves into pretzels...
>>>>“so it must follow, not everyone who says either “church, church” or “pope, pope” are home free.”
>>Exactly.
Game, set and match.
>>And I find your apparent lack of ability to make an argument or actually engage points made to you to be typical. Perhaps you’re probably doing your best for a member of your sect.
I did repeatedly. You keep missing the obvious.
>>>>“It does sin and does repeatedly and daily.”
>>No, it can’t. Christ can’t sin.
True.
>>The Body of Christ can’t sin.
False. Christ is not the same as Body of Christ. If you can’t make that distinction, you are hopeless.
>>Scripture can’t sin. Individual human beings do.
If you raise your “tradition” to the level of scripture, then that redefined “scripture” can and did sin.
>>>>“A doctrine’s truth or falsity is judged by scripture not whether a clerical hierrarchy teaches it or not.”
>>Except that is no where in scripture as such.
Isaiah 40:8 - The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God will stand forever.
.....Papal opinion not included.
>>I have no doubt whatsoever that scripture should be used – it is infallible and inspired after all – but scripture says exactly nothing about abortion. It never mentions cloning. It never mentions gene splicing. It never once mentions nuclear weapons. Yes, it does address many moral issues but it still takes that “clerical hierarchy” to deduce from it.
Neither is “trinity” explicitly mentioned. Yes, there is interpretation involved. However, a clerical hierarchy’s (or anyone’s) interpretation is only valid if it is grounded in Scripture; not the imported metaphysical speculations of Aristotle.
>>>The sad thing is that you can’t (apparently) see the obvious. Your “clerical hierarchy” decided that there were only 66 biblical books. No where in those 66 books does it say that. It was men – and men alone – who decided that.
Wrong. It was the Holy Spirit that led (my definition not your definition of institutional church) of church to RECOGNIZE what was cannonical and what was heretical. Men did not DECIDE it.
If you insist on being obtuse, I can play your game: a bunch of Jewish Rabbis decided what constituted the OT at Council of Jamnia in 70AD, long before a pope was fitted for a frock and tiara; admittedly to exclude NT writings.
>>>>You accept that and apparently do so unquestioningly. And you don’t see how that works against what you yourself just said about “clerical hierarchy”? It is this apparent blindness mixed with hubris grounded in ignorance that makes anti-Catholicism so utterly bizarre.
I have no problem with the first 1,000 years or so of the church that established by the Apostles. My problem is and always has been its slow innovation and apostasy until the Reformation shed all the non-sense and recovered the pure apostolic doctrine.
>>>>“and loving it for 500 years.....”
>>Thanks for admitting that your sects are only 500 years old. That in itself means they are not part of the Church and were not founded by Christ. They’re just latter day sects.
That’s like the Buddhists and Judaism claiming that longevity is the benchmark rather than scripture. Besides, we consider ourselves to be the more faithful adherents to the apostolic faith and reject the innovations and apostasy of the papists.
>>>>“by preaching that what He did on the cross wasn’t enough, like your masters do?”
>>Christ is my master and no one in my Church preaches that
“what He did on the cross wasn’t enough”.
You do that every time you mention James in defense of works supplementing the work of Christ on the Cross.
That is the exact implication of bleating about James. All that hokum about the “infused” grace as if its something that God pours into a believer instead of God’s attitude towards sinful humans due to what.
Rome teaches that man has to add his good works to complete what Christ couldn’t accomplish on the cross.
It seems most lay catholics know nothing more than James in the Bible and not even the teachings of their own church. The hierarchy treats you like you are mushrooms: keeping you in the dark and feeding your bovine manure.
>>>>“pfffft.....500 years and going strong...”
>>Protestants making up falsehoods form 500 years. And you’re proving it.
Celebrating God’s grace from reclaiming His pure gospel from the Babylonian Captivity of His Church from the clutches of the papists.
>>>Nope. Every Mass, for instance, honors God the Father, through the Son, and with the invocation of the Holy Spirit. It’s sad that you are trying to use scripture – a gift to the Catholic Church – to attack the Catholic Church.
Mass is another morass about humans sacrificing Jesus again and again and again and again. Not exactly a source of comfort.
>>>>“Because Luther didn’t see Christ in James.”
>>No. James 2:1: “My brethren, show no partiality as you hold the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory.” So now tell me how you honestly believe “Luther didn’t see Christ in James” when James twice mentions Jesus by name including once at the very beginning of the chapter I cited? The real issue, of course, is that James preached that faith alone wasn’t enough. He specifically mentions works and that went against Luther’s false theology. That’s why Luther hated the Letter of James. So much for sola scriptura!
We disagree on definition of faith. Sola scripture is not sola James.
>>>>“From Eusebius on,”
>>So you’re reduced to citing “clerical hierarchy”? Oh, the irony.
Eusebius doesn’t belong to the Roman Church. But he cited very early in 2nd century AD that there was a dispute whether James ought to be included in the cannon; a precarious basis for something as important as soteriology as there is no other place in scripture that backs up James on that point.
>>>>“…James was part of the scripture that was disputed whether it belongs in the cannon. Technical word for it is antilegomena. No such questions are raised about Romans, Galatians or Ephesians.”
>>And? Was Luther right or wrong about James? He was wrong.
He was right.
>>Why do you assume he was right about anything else if you have to admit he was wrong about books of the Bible while still teaching the false doctrine of sola scriptura?
Because everything he taught points to the foot of the cross where to find comfort and assurance.
>>>>“You don’t draw a fundamental soteriology doctrine from a disputed book when it wasn’t confirmed by other books that weren’t disputed (homologoumena). That’s where Rome screwed the pooch.”
>>>>You really seem to have no idea of what you’re talking about:
>>1)The Catholic Church does NOT “draw a fundamental soteriology doctrine from a disputed book”. The first books it uses are the Gospels and the very words of Christ Himself.
James was disputed from the very beginning. The whole (misguided understanding) of faith and works is derived entirely from James.
>>2)The Letter of James refutes Luther and so Luther rejected the Letter of James. That’s why I mentioned it.
Then James “refutes” Paul in repeated assertions in Romans, Galatians and Ephesians and OT Habbakuk “the just shall live by faith.”
>>3)No one disputes the letter of James TODAY. If it is acknowledged by Protestants as inspired and inerrant, then they have to deal with it.
We do. Through careful and proper exegesis and in light of what else is taught about Justification.
>>>>“Then your spiritual masters have demonstrated bad faith with a charade of calls for unity.”
>>My master is Christ.
I hope you are right. The words are fine but the music is off.
>>>>“Because Gospel is the truth.”
>>It is – and I wish Protestants would embrace it for once.
We do. We just leave behind the yoke of slavery that Rome reimposes on the pure Gospel like the Judaizers tried to in Galatians (Paul beat them like rented mules).
>>>>“I can’t remediate you lack of knowledge of the Bible or Church History.”
>>I know both better than you do. I have a PhD in history and specialized in Church History. You make one error after another.
here’s my unimpressed look...
>>>>“Read Martin Chemnitz’s 4 volume Examination of the Council of Trent.”
>>Why would I? Nothing Chemnitz says there really has anything to do with what we’re talking about.
Of course you wouldn’t. It would rain on your delusional parade. Jacob Andrada’s interpretation of Trent is official. He and Pighius both state how they can’t be open about their opinion about written scripture or people will tar and feather them. So, they used circumlocutions to avoid saying what they mean.
Tridentine fathers are a repetition of phenomenon warranting Jer 14:14: “The prophets are prophesying lies in My name; I did not send them, no did I command them or speak to them. They are prophesying...the deceit of their own minds.”
So your unwritten “traditions” become a way to sneak nonsense in and equate it with scriptures.
>>>>“It vaporizes the many layers of papal dross on the pure and priceless Gospel.”
>>It does no such thing. All it does is push a narrative for a Protestant gospel as opposed to the actual gospel.
At least, we are fighting about Gospel instead of those traditions your neo-pelagian heresy clings to. Your much vaunted traditions are as worthless as the Pharisees and their talmud.....same way to sneak in bogus speculations as equivalent to God’s Word. As Marx said, history repeats itself “first as a tragedy and then as farce” with Talmud being tragedy and Trent as farce.
>>>>“False. Christ is not the same as Body of Christ. If you can’t make that distinction, you are hopeless.”
>>It’s His Body. You’re the one who can’t make a distinction.
Categorical mistake a dull freshman wouldn’t make...does your Ph.D sheepskin come on a perforated roll?
>>>>So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter. - 2 Thessalonians 2:15
We according to the command of Christ in John 5:39 and the many examples of the Bereans in Acts 17:11 will search the Scriptures to see whether these things are as the paplists maintain.
>>>>So you’re claiming St. Paul taught sin? Typical Protestant failure to know and understand scripture, Church history, logic, and common sense.
He taught grace. You teach grace + works which is a semi-pelagian heresy.
>>>>“Isaiah 40:8 - The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God will stand forever......Papal opinion not included.”
>>You really can’t make an argument can you?
I did. Papal opinion wasn’t included in Isaiah 40:8.
>>>>“Neither is “trinity” explicitly mentioned.”
>>And it was that “clerical hierarchy” that defined the orthodox understanding of the Trinity at Nicaea.
A church council in 325 wasn’t the ossified monstrosity that you worship now. This is what Constantine said at Nicea: “For the books of the evangelists and apostles and the oracles of the ancient prophets plainly teach us what we are to think concerning divine matters. Therefore let us cease our hostile discord and take the solutions of the questions out of the divinely inspired sayings.” I didn’t see any traditions mentioned. Did you?
Traditions not confirmed by written scriptures are not dogma. Some of them may be useful but not dogmatic.
>>>>By the “clerical hierarchy” and relying on “tradition” – both of which you heap abuse on even though you are clearly reliant upon them too. You can’t even see it can you?
Constantine called Nicea. By then Bishop of Rome was just one guy among church fathers. No hierarchy then....certainly no curia.
>>>>“However, a clerical hierarchy’s (or anyone’s) interpretation is only valid if it is grounded in Scripture; not the imported metaphysical speculations of Aristotle.”
>> I have no doubt the Holy Spirit was there to guide the Church in the question of the canon.
Holy Spirit led the church (not The Church, if you call the difference between small “c” and capital “C”) to recognize it.....not “guide” it.
>>2) But the Church decided differently than Luther. That means Luther was wrong.
Ph.D logic includes interpreting an argument in light of a premise and declare the premise is proved?
>>3) It also means Luther’s sola scriptura is unworkable – first, because it can’t solve the problem of canon and second because it is inoperable in the proper sense unless there is a complete canon and Lutherans don’t have the complete canon. They have only 66 books. They do not have what the Holy Spirit guided the “clerical hierarchy” to decide on.
Its not just Luther. Luther merely went back and learned from Ireneus, Augustine, Chrysostom, Origen etc. Your pope and his band of “princes” come long after and steered many people away from the apostolic faith.
>>>>Yes, you do. In that first millennium you find the full canon being used in East and West. You find veneration of relics, veneration of saints, clerical celibacy, and a number of other things you don’t believe in.
In other words, the canon was fixed long before Rome and its comical theories about its role in fixing the canon and other after-the-fact rationalizations.
>>>>“My problem is and always has been its slow innovation and apostasy until the Reformation shed all the non-sense and recovered the pure apostolic doctrine.”
>>That’s a fantasy. Pure apostolic doctrine was never lost and if you want to claim it was, then you’re no different than a Mormon.
Precisely because it was lost again and again, that God inscripturated His Word with his own finger on Mt. Sinai and Moses wrote down other teachings contemporaneously......not passing some secret lore from one priest to the other to justify ignoring what was actually written and later calling that horse manure “tradition.”
>>>>“That’s like the Buddhists and Judaism claiming that longevity is the benchmark rather than scripture.”
>>No, actually it isn’t. True Buddhists do not believe in gods or priests of any kind.
You are truly dense....longevity is not an argument for truth since you seem to be hung up on some magical 500 years....and your fantasy that the Roman Church is 2,000 years old.
>>>>The Catholic Church was founded by God. He did it in the first third of the first century. Protestantism was founded in 1517. It was founded by a heretical German monk.
There was no “The Catholic Church” founded by God. There was ‘the catholic church.” The bishop of Rome was a nobody until Rome fell and Medieval Europe was being born. He became prominent only 12th or 13th century after which all your pet theories were being invented. But by then Eastern Church wasn’t exactly buying into the arrogant claims of the bishop of Rome.
>>>>“You do that every time you mention James in defense of works supplementing the work of Christ on the Cross.”
>>>>Let me make it as simple as I can for you
this i got to see
>>The works are Christ’s.
Period. Done. Nothing else.
>>He starts them in us.
No. He already accomplished them. done. finito. complete. nothing left to be done. Nothing left for us to do.
>>Through His grace, won for us on the cross, we can cooperate with His works that He has started in us.
He finished it. He didn’t just start it. And then He offers it to freely to those who trust His promise.
>>Ultimately, all of this, the grace, the works, our ability to cooperate with His grace, comes from His sacrifice on the Cross. It’s all from Him. None of this supplements anything that happened on the Cross. Instead it COMES FROM the Cross.
No. you are saying it starts there and we complete it. That’s what Rome has been teaching since Trent. Technically, Rome drifted into teaching that pre-Trent. But then Trent made it official.
>>>>But, of course, you’re waiting for Chemnitz to come back from the dead and write a commentary on that so you know what you’re supposed to think about it, right? Yes, God forbid you actually read it for yourself.
I have read RCC already and dutifully filed it under fantasy literature. Too bad you haven’t read the Augsburg Confession.
>>>>The merit of man before God in the Christian life arises from the fact that God has freely chosen to associate man with the work of his grace. The fatherly action of God is first on his own initiative, and then follows man’s free acting through his collaboration,
This is where the wheels on the bus come off.....man plays no role in the salvation. This is where Rome is claiming that man adds to what God did (or with its usual verbal obfuscation of “man...free...acting...collaboration” etc).
>>>>so that the merit of good works is to be attributed in the first place to the grace of God, then to the faithful. Man’s merit, moreover, itself is due to God, for his good actions proceed in Christ, from the predispositions and assistance given by the Holy Spirit.
Man has no merit..not even secondary place to God’s merit.
God doesn’t need our good works. However, our fellow man does need our good works. Therefore, we gratefully respond to His free gift by serving our fellow man. This service to fellow man is the EFFECT of our salvation NOT the cause (nor does it contribute even in the tiniest part) of our salvation.
There’s no one else on the soteriological stage: just God....no man...not in the background, not as scenery, not even as a prop.
There’s no starting. As Christ said on the cross, “It is finished.” It is God’s plan for saving mankind that was promised in Genesis 3:15.
>>>>So these good works that you hate so much come from God Himself and we cooperate with them. You’ve been spending your time – perhaps decades - attacking something that we don’t even believe. A normal person shown this would then take pause and think. We’ll see what happens with you.
Hello Kettle, this is Pot, you are black.
>>>>We can therefore hope in the glory of heaven promised by God to those who love him and do his will. In every circumstance, each one of us should hope, with the grace of God, to persevere “to the end” and to obtain the joy of heaven, as God’s eternal reward for the good works accomplished with the grace of Christ
Here’s the semi-pelagian heresy. No reward for good works accomplished with or without grace of Christ. Good works by man are just God’s means of ministering to His creation and His people. They play no soteriological role.
>>>>“All that hokum about the “infused” grace as if its something that God pours into a believer instead of God’s attitude towards sinful humans due to what.”
>>There had better be infused grace or no one is going to Heaven.
Infusion is Rome’s invention with no support in scripture.
>>Revelation tells us nothing unclean can enter Heaven. If there’s no infused grace, then no one truly is cleansed of sin. Imputed righteousness does not render a person cleansed as infused grace does. God gives us what we need. And we need infused grace to enter Heaven.
Here’s Rome Idolatry of Reason and having contempt for God’s clear and direct promise. God who spoke creation into being makes a promise........and you peddle infusion theory!!!!! When did the thief on the cross get his infusion? was it similar to a blood infusion? or is it a mystical metaphor buggered by your worship of human reason? what good works did the thief “cooperate” with? He merely confessed that he was a sinner and believed God’s promise and Jesus promised him paradise the very same day.
>>>>“Mass is another morass about humans sacrificing Jesus again and again and again and again. Not exactly a source of comfort.”
>>1) Jesus was sacrificed ONCE. There is no way to do it again even if someone wanted to.
>>2) Jesus’s ONE sacrificed is offered up again – as the Apostles did it.
So, the sacrifice wasn’t enough? Pardon me if I am skeptical about your rendition of what the Apostles actually did.
>>We might actually agree on the definition of faith. What we disagree on is exactly what you deny – Christ’s works in us.
No, you are denying sufficiency of Christ’s work. You claim He started something and needs man’s cooperation (which He helps out with) to finish it.
>>>>“Sola scripture is not sola James.”
>>And there can be no sola scriptura without James if it is in your Bible. And James does not teach sola fide.
It is in the Bible. It is a call for how Christians live out their faith...not the source nor cause nor completion nor indication of their salvation.
>>Ha! He sure wasn’t a Lutheran. He was baptized a Catholic.
You can’t distinguish between (or deliberately obfuscate) catholic and Roman Catholic.
>>>>“But he cited very early in 2nd century AD that there was a dispute whether James ought to be included in the cannon;”
>>Canon. Not “cannon”. Do you know the difference?
I do. One blasts away Rome’s pretensions to invent “traditions” to supplement clear and direct Scripture. The other blows your arguments away.
>>>>“a precarious basis for something as important as soteriology as there is no other place in scripture that backs up James on that point.”
>>False. I already told you that the first place orthodox Christians go to for soteriology is the Gospels. Jesus was the savior and preached redemption.
Correction. Jesus IS the savior and PREACHES redemption.
>>You start with Him. He is the Savior! Second, Christ Himself, the SAVIOR, says in John 8, 14, and 15 that we must keep His word and commandments. Look at those chapters. See how He ties it to His love and even salvation itself?
Why don’t you keep the Decalog directly and cut out Christ as a middle-man? That’s right! you need Him to start “a process” of “infusion” and wait for your assistance/cooperation and then to serve as foil so your pope can be His vicar.
>>>>He was wrong – and more and more Protestant scholar are seeing that. That’s why there is a “New Perspective” of Paul movement in the first place. https://tinyurl.com/y93a49n5
NPP argues that Paul deliberately misinterpreted first century rabbinical judaism. Sorry but Paul knows more about it from merely being a 1st Pharisee than these folks. NPP is bunk.
>>>>“Because everything he taught points to the foot of the cross where to find comfort and assurance.”
>>So calling James an epistle of straw “points to the foot of the cross where to find comfort and assurance”?
Yes because James’ misinterpreted comments focus on works not grace which Paul repudiates in Romans, Galatians and Ephesians.
>>>“James was disputed from the very beginning.”
>>By some.
By contemporaries who took their salvation seriously.
>>Some disputed the Gospels. And?
No one disputed the synoptic gospels
>>But even Eusebius – whom you cited – says it was familiar to the majority. And you’re STILL ignoring what I said: “The first books it uses are the Gospels and the very words of Christ Himself.” You skipped right over that fact. You refuse to deal with it. Are you afraid?
No. Christ was mentioned in James. But Christ was also mentioned in Josephus and Suetonius. So what? The issue is what does James say about soteriology. Rome butchered it by adding works to Christ’s grace using ridiculous theories of infusion and enabling and starting etc.
>>No, it isn’t. No one relied on James alone for this understanding of no faith alone. In fact few people brought it up. . . until Luther attacked this canonical and inspired book as being uncanonical and uninspired. You keep getting this point wrong. I think you will continue to do so no matter how many times you are corrected. Aquinas, writing in the 13th century could write page after page about faith and salvation and never even mention James 2:24: http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3002.htm In other words, since Luther wouldn’t come along for more than 200 years and create his heresies and deny James,
It just meant that before medieval Catholic church butchered it, no one interpreted James to contradict Paul in Romans, Ephesians and Galatians. (repeated pronouncements of grace through faith and not works).
>>>>Yet Habakkuk never said “faith alone”.
He didn’t says faith and works either...alone was necessary because how Rome mucked it up by medieval times.
>>Even the most well-meaning Protestants can get hung up on a supposed difference that doesn’t exist: https://www.jkdoyle.com/tensions-in-the-bible-paul-and-james/ Only Protestants have this problem.
Our problem is that you use James to reintroduce a semi-pelagian heresy after Augustine vanquished it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.